Npower versus the vulnerable? Court Challenge

Terrylw1

chanz4 wrote: »

Also so our little friends dont create their own supplys, like they do. Suppliers are however starting to buy meters rather than renting as they do now.

Is that due to their ability to operate a a MAP if they have created themselves as an entity? Or is it just a cheaper solution?

chanz4

A few of the suppliers eg BG, Meterplus are setup in their own right in some areas now its a cost cutting thing (bad thing) and own large batches instead of renting the meters. The cheaper is stealing.

undaunted

Npower themselves acknowledged the reason they did not agree to remove the supply was the consumer may then seek to have have a new supply instralled with someone else.

It remains to be seen whether the Courts will consider them within their rights to do so. There is of course no legal basis whatsoever for insisting that anyone must have an electricity supply.

If Npower were not registered as supplier the claimed debt would be an entirely seperate issue to the supply. It would seem difficult for them to remain registered as supplier if the supply no longer existed!

As to the counter claim Npower will of course dispute it. The customer maintains that it was valid and properly formed - unlike Npowers claimed "deemed contract". Again it will be for the Courts to consider and determine the issue

Terrylw1

The customer is within their rights to have the supply removed and fit a new one. This means the old MPAN would be disconnected and the supplier becomes end dated and no one can register again.

The customer then has to get the distributor to come back out and fit a new supply so the customer can choose a supplier to register them and get a meter fitted.

So, the disconnection and meter removal would be free and the distributor would charge for a new supply. How is that in the customers interest? It would be more appropriate to just let the customer leave them and they pay up to ttge switch date. Just because they can object, they dont have to, its a decision allowed to them...and to be honest its a bit outdated now.

Other points to consider:

- if the supplier sent out the meter operator, he would instantly abort no matter what the customer said because he has the power to determine if the job should be done. He would see there is a load and abort.

- to disconnect the supply itself, a supplier cannot authorise it, its not their decision. They send a request to the distributor to contact the customer. They would refuse to do it. In the past there has been a customer in one region without elec due to errors and he was elderly using candles...house on fire, supplier and distributor in court.

Duty of care, health and safety, etc, has to be covered.

So, to do this the supplier would have to get the meter operator to agree, who would want something that covers them in court.

The distributor would need to agree with the customer, which try wouldn't as this is just a customer and a supplier buying heads so why should they waste time on it?

Cardew

Before the Electricity Act, which introduced the concept of a 'Deemed Contract' the regional company could disconnect the supply when the old occupant left a property, unless the new occupant had made arrangements in advance for the supply to remain connected. This could entail paying a deposit.

The deemed contract was introduced to help consumers as it means we can move into a house with the electricity(and gas) connected.

If the OP's friend, didn't want to have a 'deemed contract' he should have arranged to switch suppliers and not move into the house until the switch had taken place.

Terrylw1

That's a terminology thing.

Removing a meter fuse or meter is classed as deenergisation. So, they used to do that on change of tenancy.

Disconnection means a full service removal, equipment removed, pot ended, etc. This is a final action and it would be a full new connection from there.

You can't get away from the Deemed contract issue. A switch can only take place by a future data registration, so the customer would have to tell them the move in date and they would have tyo use that. That could frequentky go wrong and what if the handover date changed

spiro

Terrylw1 wrote: »

The customer is within their rights to have the supply removed and fit a new one. This means the old MPAN would be disconnected and the supplier becomes end dated and no one can register again.

This is not correct. The distributor will not disconnect an MPAN were 'future use is identified', so the MPAN would remain and therefore the supplier.

Cardew

As a matter of interest how can the plaintiff, who is 'unemployed and thus financially struggling', fund civil court action which seem likely to cost many thousands of pounds?

Surely he wouldn't get a 'no win -no fee' lawyer interested?

undaunted

A supply can be removed - with the suppliers involvement - but it simply requires the supplier not to be so obstructive.

Cardew wrote: »

As a matter of interest how can the plaintiff, who is 'unemployed and thus financially struggling', fund civil court action which seem likely to cost many thousands of pounds?

Surely he wouldn't get a 'no win -no fee' lawyer interested?

That remains to be seen.

There are no court fees applicable to the defendant. In terms of solicitors or barristers, if they have to they intend acting for themselves at trial - as they have done so far through defence and several application hearings.

Npower have apparently suggested that someone called Law works may help. Meanwhile a free legal advice service (supervised by a practicisng barrister) considered the claim, defence and each parties witness statements before concluding there was an arguable case here.

As to the deemed contract there are requirements placed upon the supplier to you know and they were not followed!

as above it will be for the Courts to determine who wins or loses this case, who pays the costs etc!

Terrylw1

spiro wrote: »

This is not correct. The distributor will not disconnect an MPAN were 'future use is identified', so the MPAN would remain and therefore the supplier.

Yes, reject it as future use identified but they cannot force an electricity supply if the customer states all future use is to end. I doubt it would ever happen, but at end of the day its customers property and the distributors equipment and the customer can pursue that route in court, it just makes no sense to do so.

In terms of whether a distributor disconnects MPANs with future use, they already do hence the MAP process was created to resurrect or request new ones whikst retaining the previous supplier.